Minutes 05-19-2020 Virtual Business Meeting

Browse Search

14 Commissioner Dorosin said this goes back to a bigger debate of how to get the most housing and community based services with limited funds. He said Commissioner Greene's suggestion is fine and the very next criteria that is listed gives points to housing that is in an area that is typically underserved, which would address the issue rural needs. He said water and sewer is a similar issue, and it is more expensive to build without water and sewer. He said the costs for housing are not just limited to the house itself. Commissioner Greene said many options that have been suggested are provided publicly. She said she most strongly objects to the "by the developer" wording as it could be anything, and not really true transportation service, and it may be difficult to enforce. She said she would prefer it to read, "Public transportation to include a bus route, or publically provided on demand service, or equivalent public transportation is accessible." She agreed with Commissioner Marcoplos' point about the other advantages to rural living, and the bond funds being voted on by the whole county. Commissioner Dorosin seconded Commissioner Greene's motion VOTE: Ayes, 4 (Commissioner Greene, Chair Rich, Commissioner Bedford, Commissioner Dorosin); Nays, 3 (Commissioner McKee, Commissioner Marcoplos, Commissioner Price) Commissioner Bedford agreed with Commissioner Dorosin to amend this to include acquisition and rehab to the application, as eligible uses of funds. She said there is no value in cutting off potential projects at this point. She asked Emila Sutton if the process is integrated with the town of Chapel Hill's process, in order to avoid working in silos. Emila Sutton said she has spoke with the Town, and Chapel Hill has released their funds first in advance of the County, so that applicants would know if they were receiving Chapel Hill funds in advance of applying to the County. Commissioner Bedford said knowing how much an applicant may have received from Chapel Hill is important. Commissioner Bedford said she would like conversation, since the advisory boards are not meeting virtually now. She asked if a full list of the projects would be provided to the BOCC. Emila Sutton nodded yes. Commissioner Bedford said when she read about the 20% limit for those with disabilities, she understood where the language was coming from, due the Olmstead act; but she appreciated Emila Sutton adding extra clarification. She said she is excited about this process moving forward. Chair Rich asked if the BOCC were to include acquisition and rehab into the process, where would it be included in the scoring criteria. She said she thought half of the bond money was going to older construction, and half was going to new, shovel ready projects. Emila Sutton said she is unfamiliar with the prior conversations, and her department would need to look at this to see if any of the scoring would impact these types of uses. She said, if not, they could just be added as eligible projects. Commissioner Dorosin referred to page 37, and said the language could be changed to include this uses as eligible projects. He said to take out " new construction", or possibly add language there. He said he thinks the scoring construct would remain the same. Commissioner Price said adding acquisition or rehab would not change anything, but perhaps new language would be needed under project detail activity on page 42, as it has new construction verbiage in there. Commissioner Greene suggested passing this tonight to add acquisition and rehab, and Emila Sutton could look at the criteria and bring back on the BOCC consent agenda.